8mm Forum: Ben Hur 2016 ... stinkeroo!!!

This is topic Ben Hur 2016 ... stinkeroo!!! in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004068

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 20, 2016, 12:54 PM:

Well, as expected, the 2016 DIGITAL remake of Ben Hur has totally bombed! there's a 100 million down the toilet.

Hmmm, I think I'll stick with my ANALOG Ben Hur of the 50's!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

(sorry, couldn't help myself! [Razz]

)

Posted by Joe Caruso (Member # 11) on August 20, 2016, 02:15 PM:

Told ya

Posted by William Olson (Member # 2083) on August 20, 2016, 05:28 PM:

Remaking iconic films is an expensive exercise in futility.

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on August 21, 2016, 03:30 AM:

These sort of remakes also show a total lack of imagination to make new films,
Can't think of anything, lets re-make another film.
Classic films should never be re-made, & one on this scale was doomed from the start.
Who in the hollywood world of accounts decided to even allow this sort of money to be spent on such a doomed project.
What they should do instead of re-makes is just put some of the biggest films in history on a short re-release. They did it with Gone with the wind many times and it always did very well.
[Wink]

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on August 21, 2016, 03:46 AM:

The Ten Commandments also had a good second release years after the first. Time for another?

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on August 21, 2016, 04:48 AM:

I have nothing against remakes as they are only trying to
reimagine the narrative for a " modern audience ".
Some remakes I like a lot such as Peter Jackson's KING KONG
or even ALFIE.
Granted some do fail and can never match up to the original
versions.

However I never understood why they thought another re-make of
BEN-HUR could succeed in today's 21st century secular Western World.
As for me I prefer the original 1925 silent version of BEN-HUR
to the later 1959 version.
Of course I would say that given my own personal bias towards
films from the silent era. [Wink]

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on August 21, 2016, 05:55 AM:

Looked at the trailer and reviews. It doesn't bother look that bad.

Pluses in ts favour at least it is just over two hours not a bum numbing 4 hours so it will pass quickly if bad.

Apparently its story is closer to the book so it does have a different slant to 1959 movie.

I would rather go to see ANY movie that doesn't involve a super hero or has any connection to Marvel or DC comics.

The negatives against it seems to be that the ones behind it haven't a brain cell in their head and have modelled it on their Bible TV series so don't expect the script to be up to much.

There are no actors worth talking about. Morgan Freeman is there for retirement fund. Might you big Chuck He with the booming voice wasn't exactly Olivier no matter how he tried.

I've heard CGI effects are a bit dodgy plus it seems to suffer the infamous multi edit approach plus a fast moving camera. Ideal for covering up CGI defects but instead of seeing a naval battle or chariot race you end up feeling you want to be sick while watching a movie on a fast moving roller coaster.

Who knows it I have the time I might give it a whirl or if pushed buy the DVD quickly give it a premiere in the home cinema and then sell on eBay if it stinks. Like going to the cinema for free. I actually enjoyed the remake of Clash of the Titans mind you the second one stank.

Posted by David Hardy (Member # 4628) on August 21, 2016, 08:51 AM:

I too am keeping an open mind on this one.
I never take any notice of what those " great movie critic gurus"
think or say.
I don't care about how well it does at the Box Office either.
I make my on mind up by watching for myself. [Smile]

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on August 21, 2016, 08:53 AM:

Since there's really no need to have 2 competing Ben Hur 2016 threads, let's stick with the one that was started first.

Doug

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2